quote:

---

Original post by illume
I recon let your team have two weeks(??) to implement a few of those features( or anything cool ).

Make it the add cool features week/s. Where everyone just goes sick adding little features.

Also adding cool features and not worrying about functionality is a nice bit of a change!

---

And how many weeks do you assign to sorting out and debugging all the little quirks that arise as a result of throwing all this stuff in?

While a couple of these features may add to immersiveness, and thus improve the quality of the player''s experience, the vast majority of these ''features'' would just go unnoticed by the players. Who the hell looks at what direction their opponent''s eyes are looking, or whether their shoelaces are untied when they are lining up a rocket launcher shot?

Rather than spend time adding features which hardly anyone will notice(and in the process, more bugs and incompatibility problems which people WILL notice) spend your time making the game stable, and improving the gameplay.

features dont make the game. fun does. end topic

so, what you''re saying is if it impacts performance too much that it''s just not worth doing it?

it''s really not a "game" as much as it is a "resume/portfolio". we''re trying to get jobs in the game/movie industry, were told this would be a good way to go.

ok, now answer me this:

if none of these features were listed on the box, never even mentioned anywhere but WERE implemented, do you think it would add to the whole "holy sh*t!" factor?

and another thing: the game isn''t a quake clone, more like a videogame version of Black Hawk Down, the Thin Red Line, The Matrix, The Fifth Element, Virus, and Saving Private Ryan.

not meant for a broad audience of game players.


and the current minimum system requirement is

a geforce 4 ti4000
2ghz+ processor
512mb+ RAM
EAX supported soundcard


i can''t run or test any of this so i cant take screenshots, but if i get any i''ll be sure to let you know. i could show you some model renders, i guess.

An idea might be to over the next few (3 to maybe even 10) years and add these features one at a time throughout several projects and by that time these things will be pheasable in a single enviornment, but even now, it''s something that even the fastest computers will choke on. Nobody knows what the hardware market will do in the future, it could suddenly hit a wall somewhere and not be able to go faster, leaving you with a game that will barely run on that hardware.

---

I know only that which I know, but I do not know what I know.

Trite expressions such as "Gameplay makes the game" really don''t do the topic justice. The definition of gameplay relates to all meaningful interactions in a game. Most features that you think of as "fun" are elements of gameplay. Tiny details that "no player will notice" are important because there are millions of details that you don''t notice around you that make the world what it is. Every tiny step we take toward realism and immersion is a step forward.

Later,
ZE.

//email me.//zealouselixir software.//msdn.//n00biez.//
miscellaneous links

Wow! those are some high requirements. I think the features are great. You may not think you can notice them but if you are thinking that you in your mind are probabaly comparing it to real life, wether you know it or not. Compare it to other games on the market and youll notice a huge difference. It definitly would make the game funer.

quote:

---

Original post by ZealousElixir
Trite expressions such as "Gameplay makes the game" really don''t do the topic justice. The definition of gameplay relates to all meaningful interactions in a game. Most features that you think of as "fun" are elements of gameplay. Tiny details that "no player will notice" are important because there are millions of details that you don''t notice around you that make the world what it is. Every tiny step we take toward realism and immersion is a step forward.

---

While expressions like ''gameplay makes the game'' may be trite, they also happen to be true. Features like these do not make a game. They may add a little to the level of immersiveness, but there is more to a game than a feeling of immersion.

However, if the purpose of this game is to show off your capabilities and serve as a tech demo, then go straight ahead, and add all the eye candy you can. But do spend some time making it stable, and also try optimizing a little to see if you can get it to run on a lower end system, even if you have to dynamically scale back the features. Having the game crash or not being able to run it at all won''t impress anyone.

Yep, that was exactly the type of response I expected.

The original question was, "Do you think all these little things will help keep the game alive?"

The answer is "yes."

Later,
ZE.

I think every step a game takes towards more realism is a step back.

quote:

---

Original post by Gaping Head Wound
do you think that if a bunch of little extras/ nuances are added to a game, they would help extend the longevity of the game?

---

No, not at all. 95% of those things all just affect how ''cool'' the game appears, and have nil to zero bearing on how long it takes to play it or how engrossing the gameplay itself is. Given the choice of this game or an identical game without those nuances, I would choose this one. But would I play the game for longer simply because the game''s dogs had fur that stood on end? Not at all. Longevity wouldn''t be affected one iota.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]